## Facts

- Parents of children attending low-income, predominantly minority California public schools, along with advocacy organizations, challenged a federal education regulation governing teacher qualification designations in Title I programs.
- The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) required core academic subjects in covered programs to be taught by “highly qualified teachers,” defined to include teachers who have “obtained full State certification,” including certification obtained through alternative routes.
- The Department of Education issued 34 C.F.R. § 200.56(a)(2)(ii), allowing teachers who were participating in an alternative-route certification program, but not yet fully certified, to be treated as “highly qualified” if they met specified conditions (e.g., degree, professional development, progress toward certification).
- Plaintiffs alleged the regulation would increase the labeling and placement of intern/trainee teachers as “highly qualified,” disproportionately affecting disadvantaged schools.
- The Secretary of Education defended the regulation as a permissible interpretation of NCLB, relying in part on NCLB’s reference to “alternative routes to certification.”

## Issues

1. Whether NCLB’s definition of “highly qualified teacher” unambiguously requires a teacher to have already obtained full state certification, including when certification is pursued through an alternative route.
2. Whether 34 C.F.R. § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as contrary to law because it treats not-yet-certified alternative-route participants as “highly qualified.”
3. Whether Chevron deference applies, and if so, whether the analysis ends at Chevron Step One due to unambiguous statutory text.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the Secretary and remanded.
- The court held NCLB unambiguously requires that a “highly qualified teacher” has obtained full state certification.
- The court concluded the regulation conflicted with the statute by allowing teachers still participating in alternative-route programs, without full certification, to be deemed “highly qualified.”
- Applying Chevron, the court resolved the case at Step One and declined to defer to the agency’s interpretation.
- A dissent would have found ambiguity and upheld the regulation under Chevron Step Two as a reasonable interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute’s text directly answers the precise interpretive question, courts apply Chevron Step One and invalidate conflicting agency regulations without reaching Step Two.
- NCLB’s requirement that a teacher has “obtained full State certification” denotes completed certification, not mere participation in a program leading to certification.
- A statutory reference to “alternative routes to certification” permits states to use different pathways to obtain full certification, but does not authorize treating uncertified trainees as fully certified by regulation.
- Under the APA, an agency rule that conflicts with unambiguous statutory language is “not in accordance with law” and must be set aside. 

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that NCLB’s definition of “highly qualified teacher” plainly required full state certification, including when obtained through an alternative route, and therefore set aside the Department of Education’s regulation that treated uncertified alternative-route participants as “highly qualified.”


Renee v. Duncan, 623 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2010)